Author
Topic: birthright citizenship? (Read 3382 times)

Many comments regarding immigration often include the idea that the US has birthright citizenship. Some state that it was decided by the Supreme Court. Yet, I cannot find where this idea was established. Does anyone know the source?

We pounded this one out back when Cruz first announced his candidacy, though I can't remember the particular threads, you could search our forum for something like "Cruz is a legal American" or something to that effect, or wait, and one of the members will pull it up.

But, I did a bit of research and found where the law was changed to accommodate WWII vets who had married foreigners and had lost their lives overseas.The law didn't use to allow a single mother from a foreign land to transfer the deceased father's birthright onto his children, so the law was changed, whereby only one parent need be a citizen, thereby assuring his children could remain in the US as full blown citizens.

Cruz is a recipient of this law because his mother is an American citizen that just happened to marry a Cuban, regardless of Ted's birthplace.

We pounded this one out back when Cruz first announced his candidacy, though I can't remember the particular threads, you could search our forum for something like "Cruz is a legal American" or something to that effect, or wait, and one of the members will pull it up.

But, I did a bit of research and found where the law was changed to accommodate WWII vets who had married foreigners and had lost their lives overseas.The law didn't use to allow a single mother from a foreign land to transfer the deceased father's birthright onto his children, so the law was changed, whereby only one parent need be a citizen, thereby assuring his children could remain in the US as full blown citizens.

Cruz is a recipient of this law because his mother is an American citizen that just happened to marry a Cuban, regardless of Ted's birthplace.

Prove it!!!Ignorance of Constitutional law is by it's very definition is a tool of the left, their very existence depends on ignorance.I gave you the law that states quite clearly that a person born abroad to an American is afforded the same Rights.

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.

Prove it!!!Ignorance of Constitutional law is by it's very definition is a tool of the left, their very existence depends on ignorance.I gave you the law that states quite clearly that a person born abroad to an American is afforded the same Rights.

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.

Thanks for the response. I did check several threads including the long one on Ted Cruz. However, none of them addressed birthright citizenship of what is commonly called "anchor babies".

Yeah, we pounded that one out as well, and came to the conclusion, Congress was ignoring the laws on the books.There is no such thing as anchor baby laws, only precedent where the laws have been totally ignored, allowing illegals to stay if they were born here, something the trump Administration is currently challenging.

Yes, there's a reason you can't find the "Anchor Baby" law, it does not exist.

Yeah, we pounded that one out as well, and came to the conclusion, Congress was ignoring the laws on the books.There is no such thing as anchor baby laws, only precedent where the laws have been totally ignored, allowing illegals to stay if they were born here, something the trump Administration is currently challenging.

Yes, there's a reason you can't find the "Anchor Baby" law, it does not exist.

If there is actually no law that establishes the concept, why the assumption by so many? Also, my assumption is that since it is NOT law, then all the "anchor babies" are not legally citizens. This should be clarified post haste especially since some of them are I would imagine, becoming of legal age. It would cause them serious problems to correct this error in their status.

Typical do-noting Congress. To me this is so easy and simple, yet they will make it a long drawn out and complicated.

If there is actually no law that establishes the concept, why the assumption by so many? Also, my assumption is that since it is NOT law, then all the "anchor babies" are not legally citizens. This should be clarified post haste especially since some of them are I would imagine, becoming of legal age. It would cause them serious problems to correct this error in their status.

Typical do-noting Congress. To me this is so easy and simple, yet they will make it a long drawn out and complicated.

This is another topic we hammered out, starting under the Bracero program of the 40s and corporate America became addicted to cheaper labor.

There is a law regarding immigration, been on the books for decades, but Ca Dims ignored it back in the 70s and forced hospitals to cover anyone seeking treatment, including illegals.This, of course, covered birthing, and by the 80s were arguing the 'Anchor Baby" bull shit, of course, the gop'E put on a great show pretending to fight, when in fact they wanted illegals as much as the Dims, for differing reasons.

Fact is, neither party has been interested in enforcing immigration law for decades. Trump, pleasingly enough, is changing all of that.

Personally, I think both this and our immigration laws needs to be updated.As for 'birthright citizenship', a child should be granted the same citizenship as its Mother. In the case of immigrants, both legal/illegal, should the Mother, for cause need be deported the child would remain with the Mother. Such births should be registered with/by the Embassy or Consulate of the Mothers Nationality. And perhaps that would need action by the UN for all Nations to agree with. A child born to a Mother who legally remained in the U.S. if at some time gained citizenship prior to the child becoming emancipated or an adult, would result in the child becoming a naturalized citizen, or if not the child could do so on their own once an adult, if they so wished to.

Logged

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and start taking back control of our government(s), spending and debts.

Personally, I think both this and our immigration laws needs to be updated.As for 'birthright citizenship', a child should be granted the same citizenship as its Mother. In the case of immigrants, both legal/illegal, should the Mother, for cause need be deported the child would remain with the Mother. Such births should be registered with/by the Embassy or Consulate of the Mothers Nationality. And perhaps that would need action by the UN for all Nations to agree with. A child born to a Mother who legally remained in the U.S. if at some time gained citizenship prior to the child becoming emancipated or an adult, would result in the child becoming a naturalized citizen, or if not the child could do so on their own once an adult, if they so wished to.

Welcome to the forum.

I believe you are onto something with this idea. I was thinking no birthright citizenship unless one of the parents is an American citizen. Could this be done just by normal legislation?

I believe you are onto something with this idea. I was thinking no birthright citizenship unless one of the parents is an American citizen. Could this be done just by normal legislation?

A Constitutional amendment would, in my opinion, be the proper way to accomplish this as it would then supersede the 14th amendment and could not be reinterpreted by our Supreme Court to achieve a political agenda other than the letter of the law.

Logged

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and start taking back control of our government(s), spending and debts.

A Constitutional amendment would, in my opinion, be the proper way to accomplish this as it would then supersede the 14th amendment and could not be reinterpreted by our Supreme Court to achieve a political agenda other than the letter of the law.

I have no problem with the migration of immigrants... when done right. A lot of the migrants coming in are hoping to get on welfare services and not work. If you come to the US to work or educate yourself and you are willing to instill the same ethic and work mentality as every other American trying to make a living then I have absolutely no problem with it. However, you can not just cross the border and expect to be given asylum. We need to know who is coming into the country and what their intentions are. Otherwise, there is just a huge influx of people who we don't know about coming here for god knows what.

Yes the last one, the 27th occurred in 1992. But without an amendment, the Supreme court would likely strike down any law passed a being unconstitutional and nullified as a result of the 14th amendment.

Logged

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and start taking back control of our government(s), spending and debts.